ORANGA TAMARIKI: THE RULE OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF SOCIAL jUSTICE

 

 

 

 

Both Karl du Fresne  and Chris Trotter have blogged on the Hawkes Bay Case of  a young girl about who should have a parenting order for her and whether this should proceed on the basis of culture or race.  I see it as a disopuite between a collectivist approach and an individual rights and interests of the child.

https://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-disturbing-case-of-moana-and-judges.html

https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2021/08/labour-must-uphold-rule-of-law.html

 I concur with Gary Judd  who blogged into Karl du Fresne's article.  He makes the point  that s 4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 enshrines the rule of law.  That is correct,  but how?  There is one legal pundit, with some influence,   who maintains  that the s4 provision is merely declaratory and of no substantive effect. I have tried to litigate it has substantive effect but the LCRO was not up to the task.

I blogged  the following as a comment:

 "My unfortunate experience, and as a former lawyer, is that lawyers can be involved in breaches of the rule of law. The Nuremberg laws were also laws of the state and the officer corps of the SS was largely made up of lawyers.   

There is no magical incantation (though pronouncing the words "rule of law" might approach such an incantation) or wand waving that makes probable lawyers as guardians of the rule of law. If it were so the Neo Marxist "feminists judgments project, with its inter sectional mummery, would have been canned long ago. Also there would not have been censorship in Law Talk of Jordan Peterson. The rule of law, by the way, is not, as Professor Niall Ferguson says, the rule of lawyers. Yet it is a good start.

There is a greater dynamic at play here. It also features in the "hate speech' proposals. The present rule of law system is based on individual rights not collectivist Neo Marxist ones. Social Justice is NOT legal justice as it is an imposition of prejudice and liability. There is no possible interface. Woke Social justice determines in advance by one's membership to a group one's guilt (sub nom "privilege')  for example. 

 I know of Judge Callinicos, who is a competent and very experienced family law judge as he was as a practitioner, who would have focused on the interests of the child which are paramount, not an a priori presumption pertaining to CRT.  

 [It is simply astonishing two other judges who should have known better but obviously did not decide to write to Judge Callinicos. If members of the Judiciary are not up to speed with the rule of law, and what it entails,  then we do have a serious problem.   It is a problem of professional and intellectual decadence.]

What we have here is a striking example of the corruption of the Clerisy (as with the MoEd and possibly MSD)- which has adopted critical race theory- and raises the issue, which I raised in my submission on hate speech, has our current weltanschauung been subverted and over thrown by Neo Marxism? 

Most lawyers are anti intellectual and won't see the issue as it really is, as such, and that  their role of guardians of the rule of law is in question if not jeopardy.    There would have been a lawyer arguing for the social justice CRT position."

Teen Vogue becomes Archilochus' Hedgehog - Marx as Mephistophles has all the answers.

                                                                             

The parable of the Hedgehog and the Fox strikes again.

Marxism and Neo Marxism critical theory is the Hedgehog of the one "Big Idea" that explains the whole world.  In doing so it over abstracts reality, deletes inconvenient nuance and simplifies and dumbs down reality and the explanations of reality.  In dumbing down society it dumbs down the education system and its graduates.  Instead of cogent and clear argued propositions based in  reality, we end up with fuzzy euphemisms and feelings and barely understood or  visceral  Marxist  pabulum. 

 

 As Professor Black has said (https://thecritic.co.uk/oxfords-civil-war/)  that some academics seek 'to reshape in terms of a set of values and methods equating to argument by assertion and proof by sentiment: “I feel therefore I am correct”, and it is apparently oppression to be told otherwise.'  In a piece on Brexit he noted   "Both authors are reductionists: they do not deal in complexity but explain by assertion, and the assertion is both clear and foolish: Empire is not to be judged by Brexit, and vice versa."

The Big Idea has swamped this teenager writing for Teen Vogue.  She is quite uninformed: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/06/teen-vogue-gen-z-mobilize-build-socialist-future-no-future-capitalism/   As one comment  has it her subjective experience of one year trumps 150 years of human cumulative historical experience of misery, oppression, death and the  intellectual analysis of a failed ideology.  To recast Professor  Black-  Marxist  socialism is not to be judged by a year of Covid-19

There is a serious intellectual credibility problem not confronted by the devotees and believers of Marx, which  brings us to an aspect of Marx that the left, and especially the academic left, brush over and that is Marx's psychological or spiritual state of mind which infuses all his written work.   

This is well illustrated in  Paul Kengor's The Devil and Karl Marx.  The book is quite annoying in places with its sotto voce colloquial comments which mars what is an informative good read.

Marx's indebtedness to Goethe's Dr Faust is seriously evident and mainly to the character Mephistopheles, whom  Marx seemed to identify with.  Mark had  wanted  foremost to be  a poet and remained throughout his life  an avid reader and reciter of poetry.  He could recite vast passages of Faust and mainly the passage of Mephistopheles

The UK academic, Robert Payne,  has done probably the best literary analysis of Marx in two books  of 1968 and 1971. .   Payne cogently argues that there is a direct linkage from Marx's own disturbing literary poetic output to his political output in the  Communist Manifesto 1848 and on.  

The poetic is Romanticism imbued with the Faustian contract.  Marx's seriously disturbed and demented thought is evoked in calling for the total destruction of humankind in Oulanem.   In which contrary to normal literary convention has  not one good character or redemption, merely  annihilation.  Then in  a mix of a kind of Faustian Walpurgis night, there is the  hellish,  frenzied violin playing in The Player, entailing  murder with the sword of the Devil, obtained in  a pact with the Devil and the player's (Marx?) own death after running through the  observer (Marx's wife Jenny according to Payne and Kengor) with the  Devil's sword.  Suicide and annihilation has its iteration in Nocturnal Love.  Kengor notes:

“...the lovers end up once again consuming poisoned cups and consumed by the flames, which they sink into as disembodied spirits. Here again, we are assaulted with violence, grief, despair, pale maidens, doomed souls, and fire, fire, fire”

And where  does this take us?

“And what is the destination of these souls mingled together and about to fly away? That is, the soul of he, the dark one, glowing with fire, and she, on fire with grief and trembling beneath his breath and pressed violently against his heart? That is, she, the blood of youth, yet pale, and he, of glowing fire, whose soul she has drunk from? To where are they flying? The answer, as usual with Marx, was terror and death, and flames, flames, flames—roaring flames! ”

A near end stanza recites, as there is no Prince of Light,  with Marx as the Devil:

“Darling, thou hast drunk of poison,

And now thou must depart with me.

Now the night has fallen,

There is no longer any day.”

Kengor cites Payne's observation:

“It is an ominous and deeply disturbing poem,” concedes Payne, “for a man does not write such things unless he is on the verge of madness or despair.”

The connection to the political writings is set out and the passage is worthy of setting out in full.  Kenor citing Payne says:  

“Oulanem sees himself as the agent of destruction, as the judge who condemns and then acts as executioner, confident that he is in possession of the powers of God to annihilate the universe. Men, in that universe, are no more than apes of a cold God. Payne viewed this Marxist vision as directly transferable to Marx’s philosophical vision. He perceived the dialogue between Oulanem and the other characters as assuming the form of a classic Marxist “dialectical struggle” that is “never completely resolved, precisely akin to the Marxist ideological vision of the world.”

“Payne thus affirmed that the speech of Oulanem is important to understanding Marx’s ideas: “Combat or death, bloody struggle or annihilation.” He notes that in the Communist Manifesto, “we hear the same strident voice calling for a war to the death between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, a merciless battle with no quarter given by either side. It is important to observe that Marx’s philosophy of the destruction of classes has its roots in romantic drama.”

It manifests itself: 

““Marx loved the line pronounced by Mephistopheles in Faust: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.” As Payne notes, Marx’s drama Oulanem is an extended improvisation of that theme, a line that Marx himself used in other writings, quoting it with relish, for instance, in The Eighteenth Brumaire. ”

An important aspect that is relevant today to critical theory is the notion of criticism to destroy by a faulty paradigm leading to a errant judgment rather than obtaining  a fair, balanced or realistic  evaluation and analysis of things:  There are no "pros" only "cons" and thus destruction.  Marx had no qualms- and neither did Che Guevea or Pol Pot-  that force and destruction would be required in  effecting revolution and imposing the new Heaven on Earth- "a merciless battle with no quarter given by either side".

It is a poignant irony that the Frankfurt  School, the neo Marxist strain that we see  today that  it  should  emanate from Goethe University from which the contemporary critical theory is derived.

Its source lay  in Biblical Criticism and Marx's criticism of religion. Noteworthy  Marx, in his introduction to “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,”  The essay Kegor says uses the word criticism some 29 times but Marx was empathic on its purpose:

“Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics”

The Communist Manifesto advises that  criticism is a tool:  "But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society.  Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class." (emphases added).       “The criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism.” according to “Peter Thompson, “Karl Marx, part 1: Religion, the wrong answer to the right question,” The Guardian, April 4, 2011. 

Kengor mentions an 1843 letter to Arnold Ruge, where  Marx advocated  for “the ruthless criticism of all that exists."   Ruthless criticism is   succeeded by ruthless abolition and the word appears 32 times in the  Communist Manifesto.  Lenin celebrated  Marx for subjecting everything to criticism,  to abolishing and critical reshaping. (Kengor p720) 

Ruthless criticism, and ruthless abolition bring us back to the Mephistophelian Marx and Dr Faust and Mephistopheles admonitions. 

“He was especially fond of Mephistopheles’s line from Faust: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”   This is no surprise; it reflects the very thinking of the man who in letters called for the “ruthless criticism of all that exists,” who in the Manifesto declared that communism seeks to “abolish the present state of things,” and who at the close of the Manifesto called for “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”  (Kengor p98)

It was just not Marx's writings that disclose the disturbed nature and nihilism of Marx but people around him were aware of it too.  His father thought he was possessed of Demons; his wife and friends likewise. Paul Johnson in Intellectuals has  talked about Marx's unbridled rancour, his  need  to dominate and bullying  abusive manner.  Marx's antisemitism and racism pass without mention from the current racially sensitive left.   

Is this really the promising ground for a  social philosophy a means of properly  looking at the  world in a  balanced way factually and in terms of mental balance?  Its historical  track record of catastrophe, oppression,  suffering and slaughter - the no quarter given- are of the  most profound in all of human history.

For Teen Vogue none of this is a problem and it would have us believe it is a promising philosophy.  It is Hell and Marx is playing the fiddle. 

Graham Hill

8 August 2021

Nelson

Dr Anton on gas lighting and propaganda fallacies: Michel Knowles’ Speechless- “the euphemism mill.”

 

 

 

Both these writers tell us things worth knowing and our own "Dear Government" may also use them from time to time.  Best to be able  to pick it out and know what is going on

 

The US Democrats and the left, however,  seem more sophisticated and adept.   Despite that we should know about them.  Being informed is half the battle.

 These help us steer through the fog of "gas lighting", spin and propaganda.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/

 Next, Michael Knowles book Speechless (2021) is a fascinating must  read.  One finds out how indebted to Niccolo Machiavelli Antonio Gramsci was, and that does bear thinking about.

 Importantly , Mr Knowles’s section of the "Euphemism Mill"- where terms of language are changed into normative no-fault implied terms of jargon or PC speak.. 

For example, the therapeutic "youths involved in justice" rather than youth offenders or delinquents, exempts personal responsibility or culpability.  It is a matter of cosmic social justice. 

The idea of euphemism mills is usefully drawn from Stephen Pinker's  The Blank State.  As Knowles relates it, the new jargon terms become trite and we always see- even at the outset- the truth that they seek to hide or fudge.

The human mind has the capability to defy reason but it always breaks free.   This is also the case for what Michael Anton relates as well 

Alexander Pope in 1709 had already figured this out as his idea of ‘sense’ included common sense, knowledge, proportion  and judgment which was a foil to ‘wit’, the minds thought.

 The tale of the 'King's New Suit of Clothes' remains apposite.

Knowles, like Dr Anton, usefully  point out on free speech issues  where conservatives often   fall into the  traps and lose the argument.

                                                            ***

Mark Levin's American Marxism...a must read

 

Submitted by Graham Hill on Sat, 2021-07-24 08:51

The key to the pushback is knowledge, not bumper stickers. This book is the informative way of doing so and is an accessible text. The chapters break down into areas: race/gender/trans, media, Environmental- the degrowth movement; the Mob which is an excellent chapter on social activism dn higher education etc. It is a compendium of what is what and with footnotes to pieces to read.

The Whitcoulls store in Nelson told me that Whitcoulls won't be stocking this book.

It has sold 400,000 copies since its release on 13 July 2021.

BFD carried a piece yesterday about "White Privilege walks of shame" in our Ministry of Education and $675K spent on US consultants...American Marxists. How does that work READ THIS BOOK.

Whitcoulls and Paper Plus are the MSM of the book trade and are happy to stock hagiography of the Bidens, Clinton, and the faux liberal but Marxist, Obama. There is no corrective to the left wing bias available such as Victor Davis Hansen.

https://www.washingtonexaminer....

I will write a review of it once I finish it this weekend.

https://www.breitbart.com/education/2021/07/23/exclusive-mark-levin-fight-back-against-crt-classroom-cameras/

The MoJ's Form- Hate Speech Submission

 

 

I posted this today on WWW.Solopassion.com having looked at two hate speech submissions posted there to the MoJ.   I have made some minor additions and corrections to the earlier version posted.   Submitted by Graham Hill on Sun, 2021-07-18 12:01.

It seems to me that the MoJ form frames the debate.

What of the reverse onus of proof etc

I assume that the answers will be tabulated into some form of data matrix as a matter of processing ease.  But I hope the outcome will not be a matter of numbers being toted up.

Free speech is determined by philosophy but some legal drones call that being 'academic'; however, ideas have real-world consequences once out of the universities such as the 17thC puritan revolution (leading to the Bloody English Civil War- a war of ideas- and 48 years of censorship)  and Marxism and Critical Theory. Thus:

(1) Collectivists (Marxists Socialists etc) want uniformity of opinion and thought;

(2) Neo-Liberals seem to be individualistic and want a series of "freedom froms" and little in the way of correlative duties-aka social obligations. My experience of certain legal neo- lib group was  that it was  not interested in other people's opinions- it was only their free speech- particularly if one's opinion was  at odds with its.     Added to which there is a tendency in Neo liberalism to an  anti-intellectual bias;

(3) The Classical liberal position is pro the individual and free speech and the rights of the individual, freedom from paternalism; people are to be robust but are also to have inbuilt morality and judgment aka decency. Mill mentions minority discourse is to be polite when confronted with dominant discourse;

(4) The Conservative position has absorbed the former as the collectivist's mindset has advanced in our culture. It accepts the values we have inherited and I would say that it is pro-John Milton's Aeropagitica, that the value in free speech is to ascertain the truth as a social good. A culture of PR spin and lies is doomed. It points to intellectual freedom and freedom of conscience.

The Conservative position assumes the Miltonian vision which in my view is the right one to hold. Yet as Michael Knowles says in Speechless (2021) it tends to:

Conservatives have failed to thwart political correctness because most do not understand what it is. They have portrayed political correctness and its derivatives, including “wokeism” and “cancel culture,” as “censorship,” which we must oppose in the name of “liberty.” These bumper sticker arguments reveal that conservatives understand as little about liberty and censorship as they do about political correctness.

I have written pieces to move from the 'bumper sticker arguments' to get on to the next rung of the ladder of understanding, for BFD et al which I can not get published as I do not fit the publication style criteria.  I understand that.   People will raise their reading age to know. Yesterday,  I received my copy of Mark Levin's American Marxism which is a good place to start to get substantive arguments up and running . It is to be noted that one (maybe more) Special Rapporteurs to the UN on Free Speech have counseled against hate speech legislation. Flow on 2nd order consequences, and the Woke Clerisy are not good at this, militate against the rush to hate speech

I do think that s 61 HRA 1993 should have religion added to it so as to protect Christians among other faiths. And incitement left as it is. "Stirring up" is too vague and elastic. would it involve the state as a plaintiff if there are protests and differing opinions? Noting that the 'misinformation witch hunt is rolling out here as it is in the USA.

The real essence involved or crux is that of freedom of conscience, that which defines the individual. That has a religious origin. It also holds that human nature exists and exists over time. It also has standards about objective nature.

Marxists do not accept this and Gramsci's advocated the need to upend common sense which is based on experience and physical reality. Marxist's argue for the social construction of the world. Groups 2,-4 above are suffering from false consciousness. Critical Theory advocates reject the law, objective knowledge and the western civilisation. Thus we get galimatias like Geology is racist; 2+ 2=4 is 'white patriarchal supremacy.  But I am sure 2 + 2 = 4 in Maori culture.

Following Rousseau they say society is at fault and all can be fixed with legislation and people are plastic non-entities and can be moulded and re moulded thereby. This was said when the firearms legislation arrived.

This is actually the real debate. Please see the quotes set out below.

ViamediaNZ.blogspot.com for earlier pieces. Not all the old ones are up yet but many are featured on Solopassion thanks to Mr Perigo.

The cynical side of me sees the legislation being passed and this "consultation" as a safety valve for opinion  and optics.  Recall originally there was to be no consultation.  Consultation does not oblige the MoJ to accept the content of any submission in making its ultimate decision.